Anarkali Sarabhai v. CIT Gujarat

138 ITR 437High Court1982#9376 most cited

What is Anarkali Sarabhai v. CIT Gujarat authority for?

The difference between the face value received by a shareholder on redemption of preference shares and the price paid for those shares is exigible to capital gains tax.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Anarkali Sarabhai v. CIT Gujarat · 138 ITR 437 · redemption of preference shares · capital gains tax · shareholder · company law · taxable income · Gujarat High Court · preference shares

Judgments citing Anarkali Sarabhai v. CIT Gujarat

Principal Commissioner Income Tax 4 Bengaluru 2 vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Private Limited

SLP(C) No.-000063-000063 - 2025Supreme Court02 Jan 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 2(47)

…ven though the appellant continues to remain a shareholder his right as a holder of those shares clearly stands reduced with the reduction in the share capital. 13. The Gujarat High Court had in another case reported as Anarkali Sarabhai v. CIT [(1982) 138 ITR 437 (Guj)] followed the judgment under appeal. That was a case where there had been redemption of preference share capital by the company and money was paid to the shareholders. It was held therein that difference between the face value received by the shareholder and the price paid for preference shares was exigible to capital gains tax. In co…

ACIT - 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Privi Speciality Chemicals Ltd. (Earswhile Privi Organics Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7356/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Salvamani
Section 143(3)Section 250

…pany. The Assessing Officer (‘AO’) vide order dated 10/02/2014 passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and by placing reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Anarkali Sarabhai vs CIT (1982) 138 ITR 437 (Guj.) held that there was an asset which was transferred and as gain has been accrued to the assessee, therefore the same is assessed as capital gains in the hands of the assessee. The AO treated the amount of Rs.22,06,91,000 credited to the Security Premium Account as short-term capital gains and added the same to the total income of the assess…

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(2)2, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1449/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Sa No.462/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1449/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Sa No.461/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7382/Mum/2017) (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…er share only. Even though the appellant continues to remain a shareholder, his right as a holder of those shares clearly stands reduced with the reduction in the share capital. 12. The Gujarat High Court had in another case as Anarkali Sarabhai v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 437 followed the judgment under appeal. That was a case where there had been redemption of preference share capital by the company and money was paid to the shareholders. It was held therein that difference between the face value received by the shareholder and the price paid for preference share was exigible to capital gains tax. In coming to this c…

Carestream Health Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 826/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Carestream Health Inc Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of C/O. Carestream Health Income Tax, Range-2(1)(1) India Private Limited Scindia House, M.M.Road Sunteck Centre Ballard Pier 1St Floor, Subhash Road Mumbai – 400 028 Vile Parle (E) Mumbai – 400 057 Pan/Gir No. Aaecc6050H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 115Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(22)(d)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 48

…er share only. Even though the appellant continues to remain a shareholder, his right as a holder of those shares clearly stands reduced with the reduction in the share capital. 12. The Gujarat High Court had in another case as Anarkali Sarabhai v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 437 followed the judgment under appeal. That was a case where there had been redemption of preference share capital by the company and money was paid to the shareholders. It was held therein that difference between the face value received by the shareholder and the price paid for preference share was exigible to capital gains tax. In coming to this c…

National Cooperative Development Corporation vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, question No

ITA/227/2012HC Delhi10 Apr 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 3Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)

…way of "investment", within the meaning of ~.ection 2(7). In this view it was held that such interest was not charge~ble under the Interest Tax Act. 10. We may also refer to a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Anarkali Sarabhai v. CIT Gujarat {1982] 138 ITR 437. That case arose under the Income Tax Act and the question was whether the assessee was liable to pay capital gains tax on receipt of an amount equal to the face value of the preference shares when the company redeem them. The assessee received from the company an amount which exceeded the amount which he had paid for these shares. In decid…

National Cooperative Development Corporation vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, question No

ITA - 228 / 2012HC Delhi10 Apr 2012
Section 260ASection 3Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)

…way of "investment", within the meaning of ~.ection 2(7). In this view it was held that such interest was not charge~ble under the Interest Tax Act. 10. We may also refer to a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Anarkali Sarabhai v. CIT Gujarat {1982] 138 ITR 437. That case arose under the Income Tax Act and the question was whether the assessee was liable to pay capital gains tax on receipt of an amount equal to the face value of the preference shares when the company redeem them. The assessee received from the company an amount which exceeded the amount which he had paid for these shares. In decid…

National Cooperative Development Corporation vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, question No

ITA - 227 / 2012HC Delhi10 Apr 2012
Section 260ASection 3Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)

…way of "investment", within the meaning of ~.ection 2(7). In this view it was held that such interest was not charge~ble under the Interest Tax Act. 10. We may also refer to a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Anarkali Sarabhai v. CIT Gujarat {1982] 138 ITR 437. That case arose under the Income Tax Act and the question was whether the assessee was liable to pay capital gains tax on receipt of an amount equal to the face value of the preference shares when the company redeem them. The assessee received from the company an amount which exceeded the amount which he had paid for these shares. In decid…

National Cooperative Development Corporation vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, question No

ITA/811/2011HC Delhi28 Nov 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 36(1)(viii)

…see by way of "investment", within the meaning of Section 2(7)- In this view it was held that such interest was not chargeable under the Interest Tax Act. 10. We may also refer to a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Anarkali surnbhai v. cIT Guiarat [1952] 138 ITR 437. That case arose under the Income Tax Act and the question was whether the assessee was liable to pay capital gains tax on receipt of an amount equal to the face value of the preference shares when the company rede"-.$H:, tnt y assessee received frorn the company an amount which aeeecieel the I 'h,L ' amount whichi had paid for these shares. h^ I…

National Cooperative Development Corp

In the result, question No

ITA/513/2011HC Delhi28 Nov 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 36(1)(viii)

…by way of "investment", within the meaning of Section 2(7)' ln this view it was held that such interest was not chargeable under the Interest Tax Act. 10. We rnay also refer to a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in ,A,narkali Sarabhai v. CIT Guiarat t19S2l 138 ITR 437. That case arose under the Income Tax Act and the question was whether the assessee was liable to pay capital gains tax on receipt of an amQunt equal to the face value of the preference shares when the company redeem them. The .^,."2.1e.1 y assessee received from the company an amount which aeeeded the !. amount *tri"fffrud paid for these shares.…

National Cooperative Development Corp

In the result, question No

ITA - 512 / 2011HC Delhi28 Nov 2011
Section 148Section 260ASection 36(1)(viii)

…ay of “investment”, within the meaning of Section 2(7). In this view it was held that such interest was not chargeable under the Interest Tax Act. 10. We may also refer to a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Anarkali Sarabhai v. CIT Gujarat [1982] 138 ITR 437. That case arose under the Income Tax Act and the question was whether the assessee was liable to pay capital gains tax on receipt of an amount equal to the face value of the preference shares when the company redeem them. The assessee received from the company an amount which exceeded the amount which he had paid for these shares. In dec…

Corporation

In the result, question No

ITA/512/2011HC Delhi28 Nov 2011
Section 148Section 260ASection 36(1)(viii)

…ay of “investment”, within the meaning of Section 2(7). In this view it was held that such interest was not chargeable under the Interest Tax Act. 10. We may also refer to a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Anarkali Sarabhai v. CIT Gujarat [1982] 138 ITR 437. That case arose under the Income Tax Act and the question was whether the assessee was liable to pay capital gains tax on receipt of an amount equal to the face value of the preference shares when the company redeem them. The assessee received from the company an amount which exceeded the amount which he had paid for these shares. In dec…